Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Orders Declaring Petitioner a Proclaimed Person, Procedural Defect

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Arun Monga, has quashed the orders declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The court found that the petitioner had not been duly served and that the statutory requirements were not fulfilled.

The case pertained to a petition filed by M/s APG Marketings and another, seeking the quashing of an order summoning them through a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and another order declaring them proclaimed persons under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C.

Justice Arun Monga, in the oral judgment, stated, “Having perused the record, it is not borne out as to how the petitioners were duly served before initiating proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Such a recourse is not sustainable in law... Further, it appears that 30 days’ time, as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not granted.”

The court acknowledged the argument put forth by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, that the petitioner firm had ceased to exist prior to the pandemic due to heavy losses and that the petitioners were never served with warrants.

Based on the lack of evidence of proper service and non-compliance with the statutory requirements, the court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained. The judgment concluded by quashing the orders and directing that further proceedings continue in the lower court in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 03.07.2023

M/s APG Marketings and another  vs M/s Surya Polyvin Ltd. And another     

Similar News